Talk:Madras Presidency/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sodabottle (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review Comments

There are many unreferenced sentences in the article. Either they are unsourced or appear unsourced because of paragraph changes. Please add the sources, if they are missing or make sure the reference is present at the end of each para.

There are couple of "clarification needed" tags added by the GOCE copy editor. On balance, they do look strange to a non-familiar reader. Clarify them using footnotes or using bluelinks

I've fixed most of them. The only one remaining is "khambhu" for which I could not find the right English name.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 14:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"kingdom of Mysore in 1831 on account of its maladministration[25] and restored it to the rightful heir". "rightful heir" is wodeyar POV :-) (not a surprise as the source is Kamath). probably this can be rephrased to state "wodeyar dynasty" or something.

Reworded as

The Madras Presidency annexed the kingdom of Mysore in 1831 on allegations of maladministration and restored it to Chamaraja Wodeyar, the grandson and heir of the deposed Mummadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar in 1881.

-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian era is missing details on the 1890 act.
"venomous attacks on Brahmins" by periyar mostly belong to the post 1957 period. In the 20s and 30s they were pretty much tame. Also the current reference for this line the kandasamy/smarandiche book is a little lame to support this assertion. Please look for a better source (or reword "venomous")

Reworded-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The dyarchy/justice party focus is slightly over shadowing the independence movement in the 1920s and 30s. Reduce the emphasis on JP and increase on the nationalist movement for this period (non cooperation/salt satyagraha etc in the presidency)

"However, along with the abolition of female infanticide, the removal of purdah and advocation of widow remarriage, untouchability was slowly eradicated through legislation and social reform.". No direct link between these and untouchability.

I can understand from some of the books published in the late 19th century, that the "public opinion among educated people" of those times considered all the above as "social evils" that needed to be eradicated.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the education section a number of terms can be bluelinked like college of engineering guindy, madras medical college etc.

The administration section needs a short para about the role of legislature from 1861 to 1947. Might be a slight redundancy with the history section, but should be mentioned here too as the MLC did take part in administering the province--Sodabottle (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need references for the last two lines in the "Demographics section" (gazatteer of india?). Have added a few more cn tags. I believe the refs are in their main articles, they have to be moved here.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly the "administration" section is currently unsourced. I believe the details are from Thurston's provincial geographies of india". But i am not sure of the page numbers. Can you please source this? (no need for sourcing each line from a different page. use a large page range and add one citation per para)--Sodabottle (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the section "Administration" was already there when I had started editing the article. I guess most of the section has been taken from the The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 05:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same case for the last few lines of the "Trade industry and commerce" section about the various banks. I am unfamiliar with this area, so cant add sources. Can you please handle this?

Review over

I have completed the review and fixed things where i can. The only remaining issue is the inline citations for several sentences. I have marked them all with citation needed tags. All others have been addressed. Once the inline citations are added this article will meet GA standards.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the necessary citations.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the the last lines in the Trade industry and commerce (about banks) . That alone remains to be fixed--Sodabottle (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 09:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

promoted to GA. Congratulations for your hard work on making such an expansive article into a GA--Sodabottle (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the patience you've shown in reviewing the article and pointing out areas of improvement.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]